The recent XSLT draft...

Hi.
I normaly find myself in the position on this list of complaining about
features or lack thereof within the XSL spec, and have knocked the W3C on
more than one occasion, but I have to say that I really like some on the
stuff being thrown into the XSLT spec., although I'm still not grokking
some of it.
I love the creative thoguth behind id-inverse, and was thinking that it
could be useful for indicating the items linking/referencing an element.
Say for instance all the elements indicating "Back to Top" referencing an
anchor.
I've posted seperately on keys, as I think they might be cool if I
understood exactly what they are :/
Doc and docRef... anybody in English please?.... Same bag as key... I think
I smell something cool, but it's not clicking as described in the spec.
The generate-id I think can be a real life save from my experience playing
with HTCs. For establishing concrete relationships between generated
elements it's beautiful.
Woohoo! For mod... we can now produce balanced tables easily :)
And I like the general effort that's been made to ensure that authors will
rarely need to escape to external code for functionality, and in this vein
I think the new approach to functions a far better way of doing it rather
than just the previously concived xsl:script. It also appears as if this
mechanism may more robustly support XSL extensions. I would have liked to
see ECMAScript support mandated so as to give a common platform that
authors can know is supported.
I love the simple idea of named templates, although I see some (maybe
necessary) cross-over into effectively creating FOs, that might best be
covered in an XSLF spec... I need to think more on this point.
The named attribute sets.... YES!..... I was having to hack an
implimentation of this with ASP constants previously, and we now have a way
of managing "style classes".
As for the param-variables.... is this in fact the beginning of the end for
ASP?... thinking out loud... is the function extensions worked with hooking
up to COM interfaces (or whatever) then I *think* the likes of ASP could go
right out the window.
I realise that this is just an "I like" list, but I'm concious of the fact
that my posts are often an "I don't like" list so thought it important to
note the change in the prevailing wind.
Now if only I could get my hands on a parser that can be easily
instantiated from script that supports XSLT, the MSXML parser would
suddenly look a lot less attractive.
Anybody see any reasons why MS couldn't simply release a new DLL bringing
the newer support to their parser?
Cheers
Guy.
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list